Group 5D Conclusion

Conclusion

We have recently concluded our experiment to measure the quality of the water, air, and soil in Chappaqua and Pleasantville, New York. We experimented in the Greeley/Tercia Brook, the forest next to Robert E. Bell Middle School, and various homes around the local area. These locations are displayed in Figure 4. and Figure 5. It is important to measure water, soil, and air pollution to figure out the health of the area that different species are living in. If the environment is unhealthy, then the living things in it and around it have a higher risk of becoming unhealthy as well. Water, soil, and air pollution all have many negative effects on human health and sicknesses. Some examples of pollution include, but are not limited to, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, radon, indoor pool ventilation, biological contaminants, combustion, agriculture practices, accidents/spills of chemical contaminants, leaks underground from tanks and pipes, mining, transportation, and industry. All of these pollution sources can cause someone to develop a range of diseases. To conduct studies on water, we traveled to the Greeley/Tercia Brook. As seen in Fugure 5, the stream was located across the street from Bell Middle School, next to a baseball field, and next to the town hall. For all of the testing, we focused on an area from a bend in the fence that surrounds the baseball field, all the way down to the bridge next to the train station parking lot. This area was in the middle of the stream. The stream flows out of Tercia Pond all the way down into the stream by the Saw Mill Parkway. The stream travels through the woods, next to residential houses. It then flows around the perimeter of the library, through a man-made dam, then under a main road into the area where we did our testing. The stream continues under the bridge by the train station parking lot just to flow around the parking lot into the next body of water. We measured the stream profile, including the depth, the amount of nitrates, nitrites, and phosphorus. We also measured the turbidity and the amount of dissolved oxygen that could be found in the stream. The NYC standards for pH are no less than 6.5 and no more than 7.0, for classes of water A,B, and C. We met this with a pH of 6.5. For class D, it is no less than 6.5 and no more than 8.0, which we also met at a pH of 6.5. For dissolved oxygen, it must be no lower than 7.0 mg/L for classes A and B. We got 13.3 mg/L which meets the standards. For classes C and D it should not go below 3.0 mg/L, which we met with 13.3 mg/L again. The standards for conductivity are 25-750 ppm for classes A and B, and can’t exceed 26,500 for C and D. We did meet the standards of classes C and D, but not A and B as our results were 2,912 ppm. We also measured turbidity for which the standards are no larger than 5 NTU for classes A and B, and can’t exceed 10 NTU for C and D. We met both these standards with 2.6 NTU. You should have some phosphorous and nitrogen but it should not exceed 10 ppm. We had a good amount of Nitrogen, with 4 ppm but too much potassium, with 17.5 ppm. Finally, our temperature should be 2 degrees lower than it actually was. We found several species of macroinvertebrates including, caddisfly, gilled snail, stonefly larvae, crane fly larvae, scud, crayfish, damselfly larvae, aquatic worm, and stonefly larvae in the pond. We got a macro invertebrate Water Quality Rating was 23 (excellent) on our first day, and 18 (good) on our second day. One group of conflicting data that we got was turbidity, which we got an average of 2.6 NTU on our first day but, on our second day we got an average of 8.9 NTU. This was most likely caused by the machine being calibrated incorrectly. There was also a huge drop in dissolved oxygen from 20 on the first day, to 6.5 on the second. This was probably caused by the fact that it had just rained on the second day, decreasing the amount of dissolved oxygen. Overall, our water quality is not terrible but, there is still a lot of pollution and room for improvement. A few things don’t meet the water quality standards for NYC and some of them just barely. But, overall, the Greeley/Tercia Brook is fairly healthy. To conduct our studies on the soil, we went to the forest located behind the school. This location could be found in Figure 5. Our testing location was on a flat part of the forest the first time, to the right of the path, and on a steep hill the second time, also to the right of the path. Based on soil quality standards, our group had determined that very few tests actually met the standard, like the temperature test, the texture test, and the potassium test. For instance, the optimal seasonal temperature between May or June in New York is supposed to be 20°C, but the average of the two days was 18°C so it was close enough. The texture of the soil was Loam (40% Sandy, 40% Silt, 20% Clay combination,) but we got Loamy sand, which is technically the same thing. For the potassium test, we determined that there was a medium amount of potassium, which was the same as the standard amount. Of the tests that we conducted, the color, pH, Phosphorus, and Nitrogen tests did not meet the standard. Some issues that my group had with the data collection was that one of our scientist brought soil from outside of the 1x1 meter square area. This soil was from an entirely different location and was mixed in with our soil mid-way through the testing. This problem could have given a wide range of errors that occurred, since many of the tests we conducted, like the phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen one, involved using the soil, and if that soil was unreliable, then it also means that our experiment is unreliable. Chappaqua’s soil quality is pretty terrible overall, since four of the seven tests we conducted did not meet the standard. For collecting mold and bacteria, we first placed one petri of agar for bacteria and another petri dish of agar for mold in the same spot under a tree on a deck. After 24 hours, we closed up the two petri dishes with parafilm. We also took one petri dish and put it outside an open porch that was next to a pond to see how much particulate matter could be found in the location. The locations can be found in Figure 4. After we collected this data, we brought the dishes to school and put them under a microscope under low power. On average, the amount of particulate matter in location one, was 928, the amount of particulate matter in location two was 884, and the amount of particulate matter in location three was 848. The average amount of particulate matter is 15 particles per slide. The higher amount of particulate matter means that the air is more polluted and is most likely unhealthy. Other quantities of particulate matter can be observed in Figure 3. Our second slide that we tested was for the amount of mold in the air. As seen in Figure 1, we observed that there were 7,832 colonies of mold. The third dish that we tested was for bacteria. According to Figure 2, there were 886 colonies of bacteria. The standard healthy amount of mold and bacteria is 5 colonies. The higher number of colonies of mold and bacteria represent that our air quality is low and certain diseases like depression would be more common in this area. For the particulate matter, the main source of error that caused the amount of particles to be higher than the standard was wind. In the location that the petri dish was placed, wind is at a higher level than surrounding areas, allowing for more particulate matter to land on the petri dish. The main source of error for the mold and bacteria petri dishes was the fact that we let them sit for a week before testing them. Because we did this, the amount of colonies in the petri dishes were much higher. This experience is unreliable because of the significance of the sources of error. This is true even though human error was limited. Even though these sources of error do prove that this experiment is mainly unreliable, we can still get something out of it. Since the difference between the data that we found and the New York State standards is so large, we can confidently say that the sources of error are not to fully blame for this. It is with little doubt that the amount of mold, bacteria, and particulate matter in this area is higher than the New York Standards. Therefore, we can conclude that our air quality is worse than the average air quality in the state. Pollution in the hydrosphere can have many effects on human health. Pollution in the water can cause fish, birds, and other creatures to die. Then if these creatures were eaten, whatever ate them would become poisoned. The poisoning travels through the food chain, until it reaches us, where it can cause hepatitis and cholera. If the soil quality is low, many plants will become unhealthy or won’t even be able to grow. All animals depend on producers to survive so bad soil quality is possibly the most dangerous to an ecosystem of the 3 spheres (hydrosphere, lithosphere, and atmosphere). Finally, air pollution can cause many defects in animals that will give them difficulty surviving and reproducing. Also, air pollutants like Mercury can settle into water and plants, which animals then eat and drink. It then moves up through the food chain, and the ones at the top end up with the most toxins in their body. Overall, our environment is not terrible in soil and water quality. Our ponds and forests are mostly healthy with a few things that are not great such as Potassium levels and temperature. However, our air quality is very polluted. We got data mostly ranging from 700-900 mold colonies when to be healthy we need five colonies. Our environment in Chappaqua has a lot of room for improvement, especially in air quality.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Back To Home

Figure 4.

Figure 5.